TRENTON — The simmering controversy over Gov. Chris Christie’s sacking of Supreme Court Justice John Wallace and the state Senate’s refusal to approve a new justice erupted into public view yesterday with a raucous feud involving all three branches of New Jersey government.

In a move rarely seen in the sober world of the New Jersey Judiciary, Justice Roberto Rivera Soto issued a scathing opinion saying he will refuse to rule on cases and declaring the makeup of the state’s highest court is unconstitutional because a temporary justice is filling Wallace’s spot.

That prompted Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D-Gloucester) to call for Rivera-Soto’s resignation, saying he is the "worst justice" in the state’s modern judiciary. Sen. Raymond Lesniak (D-Union) went a step further, saying he should be impeached.

Christie’s office, in turn, insisted the whole debate could have been avoided if the Senate had followed the governor’s plan months ago.

"The court may tear itself apart over this," said Rutgers-Camden law professor Robert Williams. "Who knows what the next step will be?"

It was another chapter in the seven-month saga that started when Christie refused to reappoint Wallace in May, drawing criticism from Democrats. Christie nominated Anne Patterson, but Sweeney refuses to hold confirmation hearings. To fill the vacant seat, Chief Justice Stuart Rabner appointed chief appellate judge Edwin Stern in September.

Yesterday, as the court released the first two decisions in cases that included Stern’s input, Rivera-Soto argued it was not necessary to appoint a temporary justice and announced he is abstaining from decisions because the court’s current makeup is unconstitutional.

"The assignment of a Superior Court judge to serve on this court to fill a vacancy resulting from a political impasse between the executive and the legislative branches thrusts the judiciary into that political thicket," he wrote.

Unhappy with Rivera-Soto’s position, Sweeney fired back.

"It officially cements his place as the worst and most ethically challenged justice in the history of the modern judiciary," Sweeney said.

Rivera-Soto, who was censured by the court in 2007 for intervening in a dispute between his son and a high school football teammate, is up for reappointment next year, which would require approval from Christie and the Senate. During last year’s campaign, Christie expressed concerns about Rivera-Soto’s temperament.

Rivera-Soto would not comment, a spokeswoman for the Judiciary said.

The timing of Rivera-Soto’s comments was noted by Sen. Nicholas P. Scutari (D-Union). "With his reappointment around the corner, this smacks of a desperate attempt to distract from his ethical lapses and grab the attention of right wing pundits who share a disdain for the court," he said.

Scutari and Lesniak said impeachment should be considered. "He’s not performing his duties and responsibilities under the constitution," said Lesniak.

Impeachment proceedings must begin in the Assembly. Democratic spokesman Tom Hester Jr. said, "We have no such plan at this moment but will certainly be monitoring the situation."

Republicans said Sweeney is ducking his own duties by not holding a hearing on Patterson, calling it a political move.

"It’s time now for the Senate president to meet his constitutional obligation and call for a hearing for Anne Patterson to become a member of the court," Christie spokesman Michael Drewniak said. "That is effectively what Senator Sweeney argued for today in criticizing the current conflict."

Sen. Gerald Cardinale (R-Bergen) added: "It’s extraordinary. If the Democrats can’t have the governor of their own party, they don’t want the duly elected governor to function."

Yesterday’s Supreme Court opinions were unusually biting for justices known for their congenial public display.

Rivera-Soto criticized his opponent’s views as "prattle," accusing justices of trying to "cajole, badger or threaten submission to the majority’s tyrannical view of a constitutional question." Justice Barry Albin admonished Rivera-Soto for suggesting "politics enters into our deliberations," calling it "a slur on the entire judiciary."

"This is pretty rancorous," Rutgers’ Williams said. "The court is not always unanimous, but very decorous."

Rivera-Soto focuses on a phrase in the New Jersey Constitution that says: "Five members of the court shall constitute a quorum. When necessary, the chief justice shall assign" the highest-ranking Superior Court judge "to serve temporarily."

Rabner said the constitution provides flexibility to temporarily fill Wallace’s seat. "The court today has only six members — one short of its full complement — and it is unclear when that will change," he wrote. "In the interim, the current assignment is necessary to address the Court’s substantial workload and meet the needs of the public."

Justices Albin, Virginia Long and Jaynee LaVecchia sided with Rabner. Justice Helen Hoens had concerns with both arguments

Earl Maltz, a Rutgers-Camden law professor said Rivera-Soto has a point because the court can work with only five members. Rutgers law professor Frank Askin said Rabner is within his rights as chief justice, but the constitution is not "crystal clear" on the issue. "It’s a bit of a conundrum."